Husbands, Wives, and Work

We’ve created a “toxic” workplace environment, writes Anne-Marie Slaughter over at the New York Times:

[W]e are losing women. America has unlocked the talent of its women in a way that few nations can match; girls are outpacing boys in high schools, universities and graduate schools and are now entering the work force at higher salaries. But the ranks of those women still thin significantly as they rise toward the top, from more than 50 percent at entry level to 10 to 20 percent in senior management. Far too many discover that what was once a manageable and enjoyable work-family balance can no longer be sustained — regardless of ambition, confidence or even a partner who shares tasks equally.

… This looks like a “women’s problem,” but it’s not. It’s a work problem — the problem of an antiquated and broken system. When law firms and corporations lose talented women who reject lock-step career paths and question promotion systems that elevate quantity of hours worked over quality of the work itself, the problem is not with the women. When an abundance of overly rigid workplaces causes 42 million American citizens to live day to day in fear that just one single setback will prevent them from being able to care for their children, it’s not their problem, but ours.

THE problem is with the workplace, or more precisely, with a workplace designed for the “Mad Men” era, for “Leave It to Beaver” families in which one partner does all the work of earning an income and the other partner does all the work of turning that income into care — the care that is indispensable for our children, our sick and disabled, our elderly. Our families and our responsibilities don’t look like that anymore, but our workplaces do not fit the realities of our lives.

She calls on businesses to “support care just as we support competition”—to have a wider range of parental leave policies, affordable and high-quality childcare services, more flexible work-from-home or part-time options, and even “reform of elementary and secondary school schedules to meet the needs of a digital rather than an agricultural economy” (I’m curious as to what these hours/schedules would look like).

Slaughter wrote a similar article for The Atlantic three years ago, in which she argued that “having it all” (the perfect work-life balance) was impossible for women—and that it’s society’s fault that they can’t.

Interestingly, her husband Andrew Moravscik just wrote a piece for The Atlantic last week describing his own experience as a stay-at-home dad, while his wife served as primary breadwinner during the years described in her earlier story. His perspective seems slightly different—perhaps slightly less political—than his wife’s: for while he acknowledges that the workforce has little room for either man or woman to build a prestigious, successful career while also serving as a highly-involved parent, he seems to indicate that this is more an issue of time and resources than a societal conspiracy or flaw.

[My wife and I] had bought into the prevailing wisdom among other dual-career families we knew: 50–50 parenting was not just desirable, but doable.

While our boys were young, it was. But then we hit a few obstacles that other two-career couples will likely find familiar. For one thing, taking turns was easier said than done. One spouse’s job responsibilities do not conveniently contract just as the other spouse’s duties expand. Nor are all careers created equal. From the beginning, Anne-Marie’s jobs at Harvard and Princeton imposed greater demands than mine, because she entered the university-administration track early on; she also accepted more outside leadership roles. And, as we learned, intense jobs tend to beget even more intense jobs—a phenomenon that, in Anne-Marie’s case, led to a deanship at Princeton, followed by one of the highest positions at the State Department, followed by the leadership of a major nonprofit.

… Confronted with such realities, most two-career families sooner or later find that one person falls into the role of lead parent. In our family, I assumed that role. To be sure, Anne-Marie was actively involved with our boys, taking responsibility for specific chunks of their lives, like dealing with teachers and planning college trips. … But none of this is lead parenting. Lead parenting is being on the front lines of everyday life. In my years as lead parent, I have gotten the kids out of the house in the morning; enforced bedtimes at night; monitored computer and TV use; attempted to ensure that homework got done right; encouraged involvement in sports and music; attended the baseball games, piano lessons, plays, and concerts that resulted; and kept tabs on social lives. To this day, I am listed first on emergency forms; I am the parent who drops everything in the event of a crisis.

… Among those mothers who are beating the grim odds and succeeding in the most-demanding jobs, a startling number have a lead dad in the wings. As Anne-Marie puts it in her new book, Unfinished Business, “This is the dirty little secret that women leaders who come together in places like Fortune magazine’s annual Most Powerful Women Summit don’t talk about: the necessity of a primary caregiver spouse.” A female business executive willing to do what it takes to get to the top—go on every trip, meet every client, accept every promotion, even pick up and move to a new location when asked—needs what male CEOs have always had: a spouse who bears most of the burden at home.

What Moravscik’s experience seems to indicate is that certain jobs are high on involvement and low on flexibility, and that parents who pursue these jobs will need to be the lead worker. They will not be able to “have it all” simply because of the nature of their job. Others will be able to pursue lower-commitment jobs with greater flexibility. Or, if their spouse makes enough, they can choose to stay at home and focus on kid-raising full time.

We need better parental leave policies, absolutely—they help promote the longevity of a person’s involvement in the workforce, foster the physical, psychological, and emotional wellbeing of employees, and serve as an important encouragement of family life. Some may not see this latter point as necessary for a business to encourage. But our current policy of encouraging a single sort of worker—young, tie-less, career-centric—is both unsustainable and unhealthy. Moreover, our lack of pro-family policies in the U.S. can often lead to larger problems—they can foster an environment antithetical to the health and flourishing of the poor, an environment in which abortion is a more viable option for many women.

But we also need to consider the argument that Moravscik puts forth in his Atlantic piece: that there will always need to be a “lead parent,” and husband and wife will need to determine who will be primary worker, and who will be primary caregiver (unless they have the monetary resources available to outsource most of their childcare). In cases where childcare is expensive, difficult to procure, or unwanted by the parents for whatever reason, parents will have to decide who is best suited to work in a part-time or stay-at-home capacity—and who should remain more involved in the workforce. Slaughter’s right that we’re not likely to return to an age in which women are usually, if not always, the “lead parent.” We still need to provide space in society for those women—because they’re out there, they do work hard, and are providing an important service. But we also need to consider how best to create a healthy workforce environment for people who choose to, or have to, live in a dual-income household.

We also need to consider how best to foster a healthy work environment for single parents—be they single moms or dads. Though I think this is also a larger social and cultural issue, and we need to consider what societal/familial supports these parents have at their disposal, it’s also true that pro-family policies can help these single parents continue working and providing for their families.

Regardless, we confront a working world in which it seems impossible for any one parent to “have it all”—to achieve that mysterious yet longed for “work-life balance.” Yet perhaps with the right spouse, and/or with the right community, we can build a work culture in which lead parenting and pro-family policies help us be content—even happy—with what we have.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 12 comments

12 Responses to Husbands, Wives, and Work

I could definitely see myself working a lot less, 20 or 30 hours instead of 40 if it meant more freedom. If I was working a high end job that paid $100k or so a year, it’d be worth it to be able to work 30 hours and only make $75k, with fewer benefits if I could spend some more time with my family. If my wife also wanted to work part time that’d be even better. But the way we currently structure work that’s unlikely. Even if it was technically allowed, I imagine management would almost certainly look down on voluntarily part time workers. You would lose bonuses and promotions.

This might also open up more position in high paying jobs, more people working part time for the same money. But it won’t happen. C’est la vie

Well, this might be one of the benefits of the Great Recession and lower housing prices. When I think about the Bush Boom I think of ordinary couples over working themselves to higher monthly payments and an early grave. (And possibly Obamacare if you think about it. I knew lots of second income workers who worked at large company for the ‘benefits’) That both men and women are dropping out of the workforce and focusing more on home life.

Unfortunately, I still don’t think this means a return to the 1950’s model as working class families still can’t afford single incomes.

What we are really talking about here is choices and being content with the choices we have to make. I get the impression that some of railing against work policies is the discontent with the choices many are made to make.

Personally, I don’t want work-life balance. I want work-life separation. When I leave work, I want to leave work. Allowing the work to intrude into the family life is like letting the nose of the camel stick under the tent. Work will continue to intrude further into the family side of things; it is inevitable.

“America has unlocked the talent of its women in a way that few nations can match; girls are outpacing boys in high schools, universities and graduate schools and are now entering the work force at higher salaries.”

This is NOT a positive development! School reinforce typical girls’ behavior and discourages typical boys’ behavior. As Anne-Marie Slaughter notes above boys have fallen behind in education The constant bashing of men has created a generation of lost boys. How could this ever be seen as a positive development? http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a865/esq0706sotamboys-94/

Second, there is no such thing as high-quality childcare services. Some childcare services might be quicker a changing a diaper or hold a child longer, but that’s only the routine of childcare. The substance of childcare is one adult creating a lasting bond with a child. If a child sleeps from 7 pm to 7 am, there isn’t enough hours in the day for a working parent to create this bond.

I am afraid there isn’t any good solution to raising children while both parents work.

A friend had her three year old son in a home daycare until he told them that the daycare provider was his “real” mother and he just lived with them on the weekend. Another friend fired her nanny when her son was four because her mother and her son liked the nanny too much. A third friend stopped working when her son was diagnosed with Aspergers and realized she understood and could support him better than any nanny. A relative’s child had serious learning disabilities and needed transporting to therapies and hours of homework help.

Never mind, children are most likely to engage in risky behavior between 3 to 6 pm. They are most likely to do drugs, have sex and drink after school and before their working parents come home. Since 1970, teen/youth suicide rates have tripled.

What is missing is extended families. All the successful working parents, I know, returned to work with a grandmother willing and able to help. Whether nursing a sick child or babysitting on school holidays. One reliable person consistently available for a child.

My worldview is 180 out from today’s culture, so it’s hard for me to read the excerpted drivel without expectorating. I still live in that “Leave it to Beaver” world that worked for several millennia … my wife provides the “child care” & education (the best that can be found, by mom) as I labor & produce. One income is sufficient when one adjusts appetites and expectations with available revenue. I know families (they’re getting fewer) who live WELL on $25K/year … an ultra-modest home paid for, 2 functional cars about 10 yrs old, and wholesome (but cheap) leisure pursuits … it’s very, very doable. I have zero patience with whiny professionals who struggle to sustain their suburban McMansion, expensive habits and upper-middle class facade, especially when it’s at the expense of time with their spouse & children. I’ve also counseled the “impoverished” who find the means to afford smokes & drink but can’t pay their electric bill (or show up to work on time). God help us … the culture is broken, and more mushy-minded tinkering ain’t gonna fix it.

The thing that gets me about all these writers like Slaughter insisting that something must be wrong with our society because not as many women as men occupy corner offices: why doesn’t it occur to them that what might be wrong is our society’s insane, out-of-proportion exaltation of career as the most important facet of human life?

Why couldn’t deciding to ease up (not “lean in”!)on one’s career in favor of a sane, healthy family life be seen as a perfectly reasonable and justified choice? I’d rather have a family life that’s not frantic and time to spend with my family than a have a corner office, and so would my husband. Wouldn’t most people, actually?

That’s the major problem. You can hedge against death and disability; no way are you going to find an insurance company who will write insurance against the two of you getting divorced. (At least not at a reasonable price. Lloyds supposedly will insure everything.)

At which point it’s hello, stay-at-home parent, have fun trying to get a non-minimum-wage job out there in the world with a 15-year old out-of-date degree and no experience.

This is the problem–the stay-at-home parent theoretically should be compensated by alimony/child support/whatever, but over the years it’s been harder and harder to get alimony, period.

My suspicion is that a lot of the divorce laws have been rewritten by a bunch of divorced statesmen egged on by their trophy wives who don’t see why Wife Number 1 should be getting support. And stay-at-home housewives and househusbands haven’t been fighting for their rights.

Many women today are found in the work force alongside their husbands not because they “want to have it all” but because it is an economic necessity to live a decent lifestyle. The main reason for a 2 income family in the 21st Century is because the breadwinner of 30 or 40 years ago has,because of inflation and the insidious growth in government taxation,been forced into higher and higher tax brackets. The days of the average middle class family living on one paycheck,in most cases,is a thing of the past. All one has to look at are the numbers in the American population that are either employed by or living off of the state. These net tax consumers outnumber the net tax producers by a margin of 2 to 1.

Define “have it all”. Does it mean “have a family and career”, something hundreds of millions of people in the US are doing all day everyday? Does it mean, “oh, and be rich and famous too”, which frankly isn’t something most people are working toward or even desiring in the first place? And why is the phrase only used in terms of women in the workforce? It’s not like we had our children via parthenogenesis. Like I said on the other thread: funny how talents and traits seen as virtuous and honorable in men, are suddenly selfish and materialistic when exhibited by women.

Riddle me this as well: why does every article focus on the exceptionally wealthy and their practices and what impact their choices (a decidedly wide-range of choices at that) have on their lives…..when it is completely irrelevant to the lives of average, everyday people? Average workers whose “choices” are deeply constrained by necessities and the lack of the personal safety net wealth inherently provides.

What Moravscik’s experience seems to indicate is that certain jobs are high on involvement and low on flexibility, and that parents who pursue these jobs will need to be the lead worker.

Yeah. Certain jobs *are* “high on involvement, low on flexibility. Jobs like: waiter/waitress, bartender, dishwasher, retail clerk, truck driver, warehouse worker, plumber, electrician, nurse, teacher, etc., etc. Y’know, the average, everyday jobs that most of the folks in this nation actually have. Very, very few jobs (and especially those that don’t require a college degree) have any form of paid leave whatsoever. A decreasing number of jobs offer any benefits (like healthcare or pension). And very few employers are willing to grant latitude to parents with sick children—it’s considered “absenteeism” and is a fire-able offense (no, “calling in” doesn’t count).

Slaughter is right about our need to adopt European-style policies to balance the needs of work and family. She—and others—are wrong to assume that wealthier, educated women absorb the primary impact. They don’t. The number-one risk of poverty for women is leaving the workforce after having children.

Lots of great comments here. I do resent the idea that this idea of having it all has traditionally been viewed from a woman’s perspective. My father did not have it all – what he did have was no job stability through his entire career. When he did climb the corporate ladder, the company would shut down and move to another state. Moving was not an option, so he had to start all over again, competing with guys half his age and no family. My mom had her own frustrations – my dad chief among them. She was ill-suited to be a full-time mom, and her resentment was on display for us kids to see.

I’m in my 40s, never married, no kids. There are a number of reasons. But, I am doubtful that status will change, except for the aging. I work for my uncle, which is a dead end job. But, if I did not do it, the business would probably shut down. I liken my job to being an essential, but not financially rewarding, component of the business. Plus, I have to look after my aunt, due to his extensive travel schedule. She is just recovering from a stroke. By working for family, I make little, but I have very flexible scheduling if it comes to taking care of family. That happens at least once a year – whether it is dealing with parents on the East Coast, or helping my sister move into a new place.

All this elder-care experience will serve me well once one of my parents dies, and I have to move back in with the survivor. Given that both parents have alienated almost their whole social circle, that burden will fall to me. It is not just the responsibilities of child-care that inhibit advancing ones careers. I know plenty of people who stick with lousy jobs because they cannot afford to join a new company that may not be as flexible.

When I look at my bank statements, my heart sinks. I think of all the time and money I spent on college & an MBA – money that I could have kept for myself, considering that what I do is not very highly-skilled. But let Slaughter and the rest of the 1% continue complaining about how well-heeled women cannot have it all. I’ll remedy my situation with booze & Netflix.

La Lubu–the other fly in the ointment is discrimination against mothers when they’re looking for a job again. You take 3 years off to raise kids, you have totally placed yourself in the “useless” category and struck down from any career track. “Quitting your work to have kids” is a big scarlet A, showing that You Are Not Serious About Your Job.

But supposedly working 80 hours a week, never seeing your kids, but throwing a fat check at them every week means that you are a Good Parent, even if ten years down the road you decide to swap your mousy housefrau for a Trophy Wife.